why should seperation face a higher bar than forced union? It’s ok for a majority to be held against their will, but not to be deprived of taxation and “services”.
Something like this must have happened to explain the massive Labour to SNP support during the campaign in 2011 where the main extra gains were in the central belt which is the main Labour stronghold.
Again, I’d probably agree - but, also again, this isn’t silent. Granted, it requires some understanding of Psephology, but the signs are there. The question is why haven’t the No campaign done something about it. Or maybe the point is that it’s too late for them to have done something about it and this trend is lying there waiting to bite them in the box in 3 weeks.
What this is not is a direct re-run of the 1992 General - where all the polls pointed in one direction and a bunch of people who were not polled in sufficient number and a bunch of people who lied to the pollsters came out of the woodwork and reversed the outcome (i.e. the generally silent actually swung the election). The signs for this being very close to potentially being a Yes win are there if you look at the data.
I think the NO campaign decided that its incredible negativity would keep the worried YES voters loyal to Labour and the Union. Whether or not it did that we shall soon see, but I do believe that its negativity actually gained many votes for the YES campaign.
It’s not OK for the majority to be ‘held’ against their will - hence the argument against a 50/50 yes/no decision point. What do you think the turnout will be? (It was 60% in the 1997 referendum). So a hypothetical 55:45 in favour of yes, say, would be miles away from a majority electorate decision.
I think it will be significantly higher - I’ve never seen this level of political discussion, not even close, before. People are debating this everywhere here.
This is different. Other dual citizens are so due to birth or naturalization. I wouldn’t blithely assume that you can have it both ways: choosing to be an independent country and still keeping your UK citizenship. You may be right, but that’s going to be up to the remainder of the UK to decide, and it may not feel it necessary to be gracious about it. Or it may. shrug
Even under the most expansive case, UK citizenship would only be held by Scottish citizens for one further generation unless a citizen born outside the UK reestablishes residency.
I understand the No campaign wanting to make clear that there would be consequences to a Yes vote, that the pro-independence folks couldn’t have their cake (i.e. all the advantages of being part of the UK) and eat it too (keeping all of the good but none of the bad by breaking off and starting their own country). If you’re urging people to vote no to something, you are, by definition, arguing against it. Whether the messaging of the No campaign was - or still is - too skewed towards the negative is something that will probably be debated for years, esp. if the Yes folks win.
Predictions are 805. There is a live register now which was not the case in 1997.
Any majority will do for either side, but it will be fractious if close.
Or unless the future child is registered as British- carrying most Scots through as potentially British to at least the end of the century.
Even with Ireland, anyone born before 1948 is eligible for Full British Citizenship, as are their children born outside the UK if registered as such.
Also it would be necessary to sort sheep from goats- those who took a Scottish Passport from those that retained their British one- an administartive nightmare.
Like closing the border it ain’t going to happen and is just another Bitter Together scare story.
But if Scotland is a separate country it will be able to make its own decisions. The Bitter Together people want you to believe that the UK will have the whip hand in negotiations, which is not the case:
1/ Currency- nothing can stop Scotland using the Pound as its currency. Currently over 90 per cent of notes in circulation in Scotland are Scottish notes, issued by Scottish Banks under an agreement where those banks deposit a certain level of security with the Bank of England for the privilege. It is quite possible that the Pound is an agreed currency for a set period with the intention of setting up a local currency or moving to the Euro at some future date.
2/ Faslane- simple- it is a Scottish decision about whether it accepts weapons on its own land. The only question is what is bargained for in return for letting them stay for a decade or so.
3/ EU membership. Even if full membership is not agreed initially, Scotland will still be a member of the EEA and consequently have access as a state to European markets. Additionally every Scot would still have access to the EU as British Citizens.
Politics and international relations work like this- bargain and counter offer, give and take. The only problem is if the rUK wants to cut off its nose to spite its face.
Well note that I softened that stance somewhat in a later post. That said I tend to agree with these sentiments: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Government is a process of deliberation and in the context of democracy separation should only occur under conditions of broad consensus. A 60% majority (for example) would be an indicator of such consensus. In practice a 50.1% majority is unlikely to imply that 50.1% feel truly oppressed: at the margin opinions are unlikely to be that strong.
Again though, it was pointed out that the Scottish referendum was indeed part of a multi-step process and that furthermore both Edinborough and Westminster agreed to it. So consider my remarks to be general ones.
I see that the evidence is mixed. The polls have tightened from a 20 point gap to a lead of 53 to 47. But the bookmakers put the odds of the referendum passing at around 20% - down from earlier apparently. And the currency markets are rattled - Big Money is buying options out of concerns that Sterling will fluctuate following a yes vote. Shares in companies with lots of cross-border exposure have been hit. The pound is down.
So the polls report a better chance of a yes vote, the bookmakers give a worse chance, and the financial markets fear higher yes vote odds.
I wonder if there’s a complicated multi-market form of arbitrage that a clever quant could pull off.
Watch it, you’re letting your prejudices show. Now-calling is what happens when you run out of arguments. Or are just basically childish.
Frankly I’m fed up of the Yes side. My Facebook feed is a constant list of all my “Yes” relatives posting what most of the time is just bollocks (and when they’re not doing that they are moaning about the No side’s “propaganda”). Hell, I think it was yesterday when one cousin was going on about the views of the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, which just struck me as bizarre.
And the thing is, when this isn’t happening I am getting shit about the Swedish election which is on the Sunday before. I want my Facebook to go back to cat pictures and my friends having more evolved personal lives than me.
I don’t have any family on my Facebook, but some of my real-life “Yes” friends on there seem to be losing their marbles a bit. Just now it’s post after post about the “secret oilfield” discovered off Shetland and the conspiracy to keep the discovery quiet until after the vote. :dubious:
Is that the one where Cameron “secretly” travelled to Shetland and then “secretly” posed for photographs that were published in the newspapers?
Have you heard of Clair Ridge?
That’s the one.
Why yes, I have. It’s not a secret.
Another version has it that Cameron’s visit to the Shetlands was, of course, about the Shetlands staying with the U.K. - they’re not exactly happy about Holyrood rule.